Why did you not design a controller that makes sense such as CP290 which stored scheduled events. Who likes their computer powered up all the time. The CM11a is a giant step backwards verses the CP290. I'll be designing a controller with simple storage the regular people. Presently I'm finishing a .net interface to handle that job until I get a controller going. Life is good with muscle cars and x10 controls which aren't wasting the day when you sit down to change operational sequences, on and off's.
The CM11A, as manufactured by X10, DOES have internal memory to store timers, macros, etc. It doesn't require that the PC be booted up all the time for those functions. That is, if you use THEIR software to store the timers. As far as I know, none of the third-party software (including the TONS of stuff written for Linux) has the ability to store timers into the memory of the CM11A.
Many people who still use the CM11A are using it connected via serial port to an always-on home automation controller, either a PC or a standalone embedded system. In that application, the CM11A is simply acting as a modem, allowing the controller to send and receive commands to/from the powerline. All of the intelligence and timers are stored and run from the controller system.
If I remember correctly, when it appeared the CM11A was not longer going to be available (X10 later released a whole lot of inventory into the market, but that is a separate story), Jeff (not X10) designed the XTB-232 to fill the void for those people who were using a CM11A with an always-on controller, and could not move to a CM15A (which doesn't have a serial connection). I think Jeff himself falls into that category. He also improved on the design, boosting the transmission power, and making the unit work better than the CM11A it was designed to replace. Since *most* of the potential customers for it would not need to make use of internal storage, Jeff felt there was not need to try and reverse-engineer that into his design.